JUDGMENT : This Second Appeal arises out of O. S. No. 92 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Eluru - which was a suit instituted by one Seemakurthi Peda Sattemma alias Sattemma whose estate, because of her death pending the litigation, is now represented by the respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal. The appellants are the 2nd defendant and his sons defendants 3, 4 and 6. The original plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 4,170-3-3 from all the defendants who were six in number on the following allegations:

2. The plaintiffs deceased husband Subbarayudu and the defendants 1 and 2 were brothers the other defendants being the sons of the 2nd defendant. The three brothers were partners in a business known as Sri Satyararayana Rice Mill. The plaintiff deposited with the mill various sums from time to time which were duly credited in the accounts of the mill on the understanding that the moneys so deposited should be paid back to her with interest whenever she demanded.

The mill business being a family business of defendants 1 to 6, all the defendants are liable for the amount due to her. The trial court found that the 1st defendant was not a partner of the business and decreed the claim against the other defendants on its finding that the moneys were deposited with the firm as alleged by the plaintiff. That decree was confirmed on appeal preferred by the defendants 2, 3, 4 and 6 by the District Judge, West Godavari. The present second appeal is directed against that appellate decree.

3. Now the finding as to the liability of the defendants was based primarily upon four documents and they are Exs. A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-9. Exs. A-5 and A-8 are certified copies of the Income-tax returns of the defendants firm for the years 1945-46 and 1946-47 respectively, while Exs. A-6 and A-9 are the accompanying statements of account showing the amounts which the firm owed to third parties.

It appears from Exs. A-5 and A-8 that the original of Ex. A-5 contained the signature of the 2nd defendant while the original of Ex. A-8 contained the signature of one China Raghavayya who is now admitted to have also been one of the partners of the firm. The 2nd defendant in his evidence denied having submitted any income-tax returns on behalf of the firm though he does not expressly deny that the original of Ex. A-5 contained his signature.

As regards Ex. A-8 and the accompanying statement of account, he would have it that he does not know anything about it. On these facts, it is urged by Sri Sankara Sastry learned counsel for the appellants firstly that these exhibits are inadmissible in evidence and secondly that even if they are, there is no proof of the signatures either of the 2nd defendant or of the other partner on the returns and that therefore the relevant entries therein cannot be used as admissions made either by his client or his partner so as to bind the firm. His contention is elaborated thus:

Section 54 of the Indian Income-tax Act enacts that all particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced under the provisions of that Act etc., shall be treated as confidential, that no Court shall, save as provided in that Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents on record or any part of any such record or to give evidence before it in respect thereof, and that any public servant disclosing any such particulars shall be punishable with imprisonment extending to six months and shall also be liable to fine.

It is argued that there is a policy of the law underlying the section that income-tax returns or statements or particulars therein should not be used as evidence against any person and for any purpose whatsoever.

4. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants upon the decision in Mythili v. Janaki, ILR 1940 Mad 329 : (AIR 1940 Mad 161) (A), in which a Divisional Bench of the Madras High Court ruled that an income-tax return

Click Here to Read the rest of this document